A couple of weeks ago Audrey Britton, or one of her canvassers, left some information about her campaign on my door. This is not an article about Audrey Britton, but after reading over her “résumé” I was reminded of something that annoys me a bit about politicians and elections.
It seems to me that most politicians brag endlessly about how good they are at running businesses. It seems that most politicians are either lawyers or business people. However, if politicians are elected to represent and reflect the public, where are the teachers, the doctors, the dentists, the engineers, the scientists, and the technicians? When I step out into the world, I’m not surrounded by only lawyers and business people. There is a vast mosaic of professions and ideas. Should our government not reflect this more? Now, I’m not saying that being a lawyer or a business person should dismiss you from becoming a public servant, but I am saying that maybe this shouldn’t be a prerequisite. The first bullet point on Britton’s handout is “small business owner”. Again, this isn’t an article bashing Britton, she just had the misfortune of leaving her résumé on the door of a thinking skeptic.
When Fox News and Republicans claim that Barack Obama has very little business experience and that he was only a community organizer, I don’t see this as a criticism. I say good, because serving the public isn’t only about business. Considering the well being and happiness of people is a bit more complex, so let’s not purpose simple solutions to complicated issues.

I had the chance to ask some Korean citizens if Koreans still see America as a positive global force. It seems like many Koreans were disappointed in America during the Bush era, but they still view America is a very positive presence.
So, a thesis I would like to look into is, why does America’s presence in South Korea mostly seem like a success while America’s time in the Middle-East mostly a failure? What did we do differently? Or is the problem that we went into two very different areas with the same approach?
Are there any books or good launching points you guys can suggest? Please and thank you.

By now anyone who follows politics, and probably many who don’t, have heard about the comments presidential hopeful Mitt Romney made about 47% of Americans at a $50,000 a plate fundraiser. I’m not here to straighten out the facts, try to convince you one way or the other, or try to use Romney’s comment as a way to smear or defend Romney’s campaign. As an independent, these last few months have been a headache. However, I want to write about the reaction Romney’s comments received. Although I can understand why people reacted the way they did, I am shocked that people were shocked. A lot can be said without going too deep into the numbers.
I was surprised that people were shocked by Romney’s statements because it’s not surprising he said those words. In fact, when asked about his comments after the public and media had a chance to dissect his words, Romney stated that he stands by his comments. Of course he does, and good for Romney for not backing down and standing up for what he believes in despite the outrage and even if his ideals are horrible. Did people actually not know this was Romney and the Republican’s stance on social programs? No matter how we spin it, the Republicans are not in favor of social programs. That is their platform and this is no secret.
This leads me to believe that people are either playing dumb or they aren’t paying attention. I hope most people are just playing dumb because it would be horrible for a mostly ignorant electorate to fill the booths this November.

Out of all the 24 hour news channels, Fox News always seems to hook my attention. This is not because I agree with the network as I barely consider what they do as “news”. With gas prices on the rise, I see a lot of segments on Fox criticizing president Obama. They often have panels discussing what the president should do about oil prices. I don’t know enough about economics to give you a thesis on the supply and demand of oil. I don’t know enough science to tell you how much oil there actually is left in the Earth and what is sustainable and what is not. However, I do think I can say that Obama doesn’t control how much oil is left in the Earth and does not have the authority to create more oil. Oil is a finite resource that Obama has no control over.

Now with that in mind, Obama can create the illusion of cheaper gas. He can do this through military means which has many levels of costs. In the long term, it hurts our relationships with other countries which could end up costing us more later. Also, anytime the military is involved, we the people are directly financing military action. Obama could also choose to subsidize the oil so that we can see gas around the three dollar mark at the pumps, but obviously that doesn’t mean the oil was actually cheaper. It’s simply just the illusion of cheaper gas. We don’t see the cost of barrels of oil every day, but we do drive by gas stations every day.

So, with a wider perspective and some mildly critical thought we can see that Obama has little, or even nothing to do with the supply of oil. Sure, Obama can influence how much oil is allocated for the United States by countries on top of oil reserves, but this still has little to do with how much oil the Earth actually has. It’s fair of Fox News to be critical of Obama, and I think we all should be. However, what Fox should actually be pressuring Obama to do is to come up with a long term plan on sustainable energy because no human being can actually make more oil.